NationStates Jolt Archive

The controversy with Jack Abramoff is heating up and everyone seems to be feeling the heat, with one notable exception, George W. Bush.

George W. Bush denies meeting him, staunchly I must add, however...

*Time will release 5 pictures in which George W. Bush and Jack Abramoff are obviously meeting.
*USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-06-abramoff-bush_x.htm) reports that there were more than 195 white house meetings in which Jack Abramoff was present, in contrast to the white house's estimation.
*USA Today also notes that George W. Bush took MORE THAN $100,000 from Jack Abramoff in the 2004 election.

So we can only assume that George W. Bush...

*has no memory of anything that has occurred in the past

-or-

*is lying out his ass as usual.

How dare you post such vile slander of our good Christian president. He has always been God-fearing and truthful with the American people since he was first elected. Only the most libelous liberal can honestly say that he has led us wrong in the War against Terror and Pornography.

Bless you and your virtuous lies Mr. Bush

*USA Today also notes that George W. Bush took MORE THAN $100,000 from Jack Abramoff in the 2004 election.

if i were abramoff, i'd be pissed about this one. most other people raising that kind of money got to be, for example, the ambassador to spain. all abramoff got was connections that enabled him to steal millions while acting as a bagman for a republican money laundering and bribery scheme as part of a nationwide political machine. and look where that got him.

if i were abramoff, i'd be pissed about this one. most other people raising that kind of money got to be, for example, the ambassador to spain. all abramoff got was connections that enabled him to steal millions while acting as a bagman for a republican money laundering and bribery scheme as part of a nationwide political machine. and look where that got him.

You can get an ambassadorship for $100,000? Fuck!

I've always fancied being ambassador to Uruguay or something. I'll have to look into that.

If anyone missed tonight's Daily Show, there's a hilarious segment on this very topic. :D

You can get an ambassadorship for $100,000? Fuck!

well, it certainly doesn't hurt.

I've always fancied being ambassador to Uruguay or something. I'll have to look into that.

oddly enough... (http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/ContributorsAndPaybacks/pioneer_profile.cfm?pioneer_ID=8)

if i were abramoff, i'd be pissed about this one. most other people raising that kind of money got to be, for example, the ambassador to spain. all abramoff got was connections that enabled him to steal millions while acting as a bagman for a republican money laundering and bribery scheme as part of a nationwide political machine. and look where that got him.
Tip of the hat to you, FS. *tip* :D
You ROCK. I've probably sad it before, but oh well. Both of your posts rock.
This issue is certainly turning some interesting corners.
You know he actually claimed being "broke" before they even got to him and DeLay's relationship? :rolleyes:

You know, they should really publish a price list, so I can consider all my options fully. I'd never realized that this sort of mid-life career change was so affordable. Hell, it's less than going back to school for another useless degree.

More transparency in government is what's needed!

You know, they should really publish a price list, so I can consider all my options fully. I'd never realized that this sort of mid-life career change was so affordable. Hell, it's less than going back to school for another useless degree.

More transparency in government is what's needed!


no doubt. i wouldn't even need to be the actual ambassador - how much would being the public affairs counselor for the embassy at, say, tahiti run me?

[edit: it occurs to me that tahiti is actually part of french polynesia, and i don't know if they get their own embassy. so let's go with fiji or something instead.]

Tip of the hat to you, FS. *tip* :D
You ROCK. I've probably sad it before, but oh well. Both of your posts rock.

thanks

no doubt. i wouldn't even need to be the actual ambassador - how much would being the public affairs counselor for the embassy at, say, tahiti run me?
You realize, of course, that the path you're talking about would require you shifting from chaotic or lawful neutral to lawful evil as far as alignment goes.
Time for skinned up knees & salty lips!
;)

So? Clinton had his photo taken with Baby Assad and Yasser Arafat. Sometimes photo-ops come back to bite you.

So? Clinton had his photo taken with Baby Assad and Yasser Arafat. Sometimes photo-ops come back to bite you.
So then, you're implying it being also the same that Clinton had to return Arafat's $6,000 current and to disavow him for being a $100,000 Pioneer contributor to his campaign? :rolleyes:
Ya know THAT at least would've been a worthwhile pursuit to bilk the taxpayers for instead of that farcicle BJ bullsh*t.

So then, you're implying it being also the same that Clinton had to return Arafat's $6,000 current and to disavow him for being a $100,000 Pioneer contributor to his campaign? :rolleyes:
Ya know THAT at least would've been a worthwhile pursuit to bilk the taxpayers for instead of that farcicle BJ bullsh*t.

I'm saying having your photo taken with two terrorist leaders is more damning than having one taken with a corrupt lobbyist.

[edit: it occurs to me that tahiti is actually part of french polynesia, and i don't know if they get their own embassy. so let's go with fiji or something instead.]

It's bound to have a consulate. If you are not looking to be ambassador, a post there would be just as good I imagine. Probably cheaper too.

I'm saying having your photo taken with two terrorist leaders is more damning than having one taken with a corrupt lobbyist.
Agreed ... but the repubs are in SAD SAD shape if that's the best contrast they can conjure. And it appears that may be the case.
Although my personal belief is that Arafat wasn't a particularly decent individual, he did have a status as not having been through a particular line of conviction that he admitted to. Again, i'm not saying that's okay. I'm discerning the difference here ....

I'm saying having your photo taken with two terrorist leaders is more damning than having one taken with a corrupt lobbyist.
But this thread is not about Clinton. If you hadn't noticed.

But this thread is not about Clinton. If you hadn't noticed.
Well, it won't be until Corneliu shows up ... :rolleyes:

Seeing as, at some events (hundreds during the election cycle), the President has his picture taken with thousands of people, exchanging few if any words, the photos themselves don't mean much, unless they weren't taken at a fundraiser, which they don't seem to show either way. If they were taken at a fundraiser, it's unlikely the President would remember it happening. That's something I'll allow for any politician.. you can't be forced to endorse the activites of everyone you have your picture taken with at a fundraiser, since anyone can pay their $1500 and get one.

I guess what the liberal democrats are hoping for its that President Bush took a bribe and gave him something in return LOL.

So? Clinton had his photo taken with Baby Assad and Yasser Arafat. Sometimes photo-ops come back to bite you.

Did Clinton ever deny meeting them?

Seeing as, at some events (hundreds during the election cycle), the President has his picture taken with thousands of people, exchanging few if any words, the photos themselves don't mean much, unless they weren't taken at a fundraiser, which they don't seem to show either way. If they were taken at a fundraiser, it's unlikely the President would remember it happening. That's something I'll allow for any politician.. you can't be forced to endorse the activites of everyone you have your picture taken with at a fundraiser, since anyone can pay their $1500 and get one.
I'm sure he remembers his PIONEER friends, especially since he has this proclivity towards alloting ambassadorships to people buying their way into such favour. That's been covered here. Try to keep up.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1151784,00.html
In one shot that TIME saw, Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas. Garza, who is wearing jeans and a bolo tie in the picture, told TIME that Bush greeted him as "Jefe," or "chief" in Spanish. Another photo shows Bush shaking hands with Abramoff in front of a window and a blue drape. The shot bears Bush's signature, perhaps made by a machine. Three other photos are of Bush, Abramoff and, in each view, one of the lobbyist's sons (three of his five children are boys). A sixth picture shows several Abramoff children with Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is now pushing to tighten lobbying laws after declining to do so last year when the scandal was in its early stages.

I'm sure he remembers his PIONEER friends, especially since he has this proclivity towards alloting ambassadorships to people buying their way into such favour. That's been covered here. Try to keep up.

If you'll take a moment to read a bit more closely, what I wrote was that the pictures themselves aren't proof of anything in particular.. I have friends and relatives (parents, and some co-workers) who have chummy-looking pictures on their walls at home that would have you believe they were old pals with President Bush Sr., Clinton, etc... My dad's even got one with Barry Goldwater, like they were old college roommates, no joke. What I *didn't* write was that there was no wrongdoing.. that's under investigation.

If you'll take a moment to read a bit more closely, what I wrote was that the pictures themselves aren't proof of anything in particular.. I have friends and relatives (parents, and some co-workers) who have chummy-looking pictures on their walls at home that would have you believe they were old pals with President Bush Sr., Clinton, etc... My dad's even got one with Barry Goldwater, like they were old college roommates, no joke. What I *didn't* write was that there was no wrongdoing.. that's under investigation.
I read it. However, i've noticed, as with the "Bush is a genius" thread, that certain right-wingers have an oft-subtle way of shifting the integrity of an argument to something irrelevant (or at least covered in the talking points), and i not-so-subtly made sure the focus wasn't shifted, even if only for a post or two.
But i appreciate your articulation at the end, nonetheless.